 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
California Portland Cement Co. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security6/2/1998
AWARD AFFIRMED
This is an appeal from a decision of the Arizona Department of Economic Security granting an employee's claim for unemployment benefits. The issue is whether the Appeals Board erred by finding that the employee, Wilma Young, was discharged by her employer, California Portland Cement, within the meaning of the unemployment compensation laws. If the employee was discharged, as opposed to having quit her employment, she is entitled to benefits.
The employee had worked for the employer for a number of years as a human resources manager. In 1996 she brought an employment discrimination claim against her employer. The parties sought to settle the claim and, as part of a proposal to do so, the employer required the employee to resign from her employment. The employee rejected the proposal until the language was changed to voluntary retirement, as opposed to resignation, so that she would be eligible for the employer's retiree medical program.
The employee, who had continued to work while her discrimination claim was pending, testified that she had not planned on retiring and did not want to do so. She retired only because the settlement agreement required it. The Appeals Board accepted this testimony as fact.
An employee generally bears the burden of proving eligibility for unemployment benefits. See Arizona Dep't of Economic Sec. v. Magma Copper Co., 125 Ariz. 389, 390, 609 P.2d 1089, 1090 (App. 1980). However, " hen a [employee] states that he did not leave voluntarily, and the employer maintains he did, the burden of proof shifts to the employer to establish that there has been a quit." Ariz. Admin. Code ("A.A.C.") R6-3-50190(B)(2)(c).
The Department of Economic Security has adopted rules and regulations to use in determining whether an employee was discharged or voluntarily quit. The relevant regulation provides:
"A. General"
"1. A worker's separation from employment is either a quit or a discharge."
"2. The [employee] quits when he acts to end the employment and intends this result."
"3. The separation is a discharge when it results from the employer's intent and action. This includes layoff for lack of work, and requests by the employer for worker's resignation."
"4. In borderline cases the determination of whether a separation is a quit or discharge will be made on the basis of who was the moving party."
"a. The [employee] is the moving party when he could have continued to work under conditions of employment not amounting to new work, if the worker is offered continued employment on or before the termination date. This is true even though a date of separation has been stated or agreed to. See R6-3-50315."
"b. In any other situation the employer is the moving party, and the separation is a discharge."
"c. Generally, demands or expressions of criticism and efforts to clarify the position of the other party do not constitute notice of intent to quit or to discharge." A.A.C. R6-3-50135 (Supp. 96-1).
The Appeals Board relied on this regulation and found, among other things:
"A separation is a discharge when it results from an employer's intent and action, including those situations where an employer requests an employee's resignation. That is precisely what happened in the present instance. The [Employee] had no independent desire to resign or retire from her employment but did desire to settle the ongoing litigation she had with the Employer. As a condition of that settlement, the Employer required the [Employee] to retire from work. This factual circumstance establishes that
Page 1 2 3 4 Arizona Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|